SynthesisScientific reports2026
Construction and validation of a prediction system for postherpetic neuralgia: based on meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a chronic and intractable pain disorder. Existing PHN prediction systems have limited clinical applicability. A systematic search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Library between 1950 and 2025, finally 44 studies were included (PROSPERO: CRD420251011300). Training (n = 417) and validation (n = 228) datasets were obtained from First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University and Third People's Hospital of Hangzhou. Based on the effect sizes from the meta-analysis, a linear regression model was fitted using the training set to develop the PHN Prediction Scoring Scale (PPSS), which was subsequently validated in the independent validation set. Seven key risk factors identified from the meta-analysis were selected for scoring,, including age (odds ratio(OR) (95% confidence interval): 1.66 (1.47, 1.88)), acute pain (OR: 2.61 (2.24, 3.05)), prodromal pain (OR: 1.79 (1.38, 2.31)), severe rash (OR: 2.64 (1.95, 3.56)), rash on the head(OR: 1.96 (1.8, 2.13)), diabetes (OR: 1.34 (1.24, 1.44)), immunosuppression (OR: 2.23 (1.95, 2.56)). Based on the above factors and weights, the PPSS were constructed. The results showed that on the validation set the area under curve of PPSS was 0.759 (0.693-0.824), accuracy was 0.684 (0.624-0.745), precision was 0.515 (0.417-0.612), recall was 0.693 (0.589-0.798), specificity was 0.680 (0.606-0.754). These findings suggest that the PPSS holds promise for generalization and application in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.